Optimizing Radiation Doses for Computed Tomography Across Institutions: Dose Auditing and Best Practices | Radiology | JAMA Internal Medicine | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 18.206.238.77. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Medicare Part B Imaging Services. Rapid spending growth and shift to physician offices indicated need for cms to consider additional management practices [GAO-08-452]. Washington DC; 2008. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08452.pdf. Accessed August 8, 2016.
2.
Smith-Bindman  R, Miglioretti  DL, Johnson  E,  et al.  Use of diagnostic imaging studies and associated radiation exposure for patients enrolled in large integrated health care systems, 1996-2010.  JAMA. 2012;307(22):2400-2409.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Smith-Bindman  R, Lipson  J, Marcus  R,  et al.  Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer.  Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(22):2078-2086.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Smith-Bindman  R, Moghadassi  M, Wilson  N,  et al.  radiation doses in consecutive CT examinations from five University of California medical centers.  Radiology. 2015;277(1):134-141.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Smith-Bindman  R, Wang  Y, Yellen-Nelson  TR,  et al.  Predictors of CT radiation dose and their effect on patient care: a comprehensive analysis using automated data.  Radiology. 2017;282(1):182-193PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Lukasiewicz  A, Bhargavan-Chatfield  M, Coombs  L,  et al.  Radiation dose index of renal colic protocol CT studies in the United States: a report from the American College of Radiology National Radiology Data Registry.  Radiology. 2014;271(2):445-451.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Litmanovich  DE, Tack  DM, Shahrzad  M, Bankier  AA.  Dose reduction in cardiothoracic CT: review of currently available methods.  Radiographics. 2014;34(6):1469-1489.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Smith-Bindman  R, Boone  JM.  Introduction to the special issue: radiation dose optimization—improving the safety of CT.  J Am Coll Radiol. 2014;11(3):229-230.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Rawat  U, Cohen  SL, Levsky  JM, Haramati  LB.  ACR White Paper-Based Comprehensive Dose Reduction Initiative is associated with a reversal of the upward trend in radiation dose for chest CT.  J Am Coll Radiol. 2015;12(12, A):1251-1256.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Berrington de González  A, Kim  KP, Knudsen  AB,  et al.  Radiation-related cancer risks from CT colonography screening: a risk-benefit analysis.  AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(4):816-823.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Heydari  B, Leipsic  J, Mancini  GBJ,  et al.  Diagnostic performance of high-definition coronary computed tomography angiography performed with multiple radiation dose reduction strategies.  Can J Cardiol. 2011;27(5):606-612.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Fei  X, Du  X, Li  P, Liao  J, Shen  Y, Li  K.  Effect of dose-reduced scan protocols on cardiac coronary image quality with 64-row MDCT: a cardiac phantom study.  Eur J Radiol. 2008;67(1):85-91.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Hara  AK, Wellnitz  CV, Paden  RG, Pavlicek  W, Sahani  DV.  Reducing body CT radiation dose: beyond just changing the numbers.  AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;201(1):33-40.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Duong  P-A, Little  BP.  Dose tracking and dose auditing in a comprehensive computed tomography dose-reduction program.  Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2014;35(4):322-330.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Dose Index Registry - American College of Radiology. American College of Radiology. http://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/National-Radiology-Data-Registry/Dose-Index-Registry. 2016. Accessed November 28, 2016.
16.
National Quality Forum. National Quality Forum Measure 0739, Radiation Dose of Computed Tomography (CT) Steward. San Francisco; 2011. http://www.qualityforum.org/QPS/0739. Accessed August 10, 2016.
17.
2820 NNQFM. Pediatric Computed Tomography (CT) Radiation Dose, Measure 2820. San Francisco, CA; 2016. http://www.qualityforum.org/QPS/2820. Accessed August 10, 2016.
18.
Keegan  J, Miglioretti  DL, Gould  R, Donnelly  LF, Wilson  ND, Smith-Bindman  R.  Radiation dose metrics in CT: assessing dose using the National Quality Forum CT patient safety measure.  J Am Coll Radiol. 2014;11(3):309-315.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Berrington de González  A, Mahesh  M, Kim  K-P,  et al.  Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007.  Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(22):2071-2077.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Miglioretti  DL, Johnson  E, Williams  A,  et al.  The use of computed tomography in pediatrics and the associated radiation exposure and estimated cancer risk.  JAMA Pediatr. 2013;167(8):700-707.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
van der Bijl  N, Joemai  RMS, Mertens  BJA,  et al.  Effect of dose reduction on image quality and diagnostic performance in coronary computed tomography angiography.  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;29(2):453-461.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Nachiappan  AC, Valentin  LI, Metwalli  ZA,  et al.  CT dose reduction workshop: an active educational experience.  J Am Coll Radiol. 2015;12(6):610-6.e1.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Seuri  R, Rehani  MM, Kortesniemi  M.  How tracking radiologic procedures and dose helps: experience from Finland.  AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200(4):771-775.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Tack  D, Jahnen  A, Kohler  S,  et al.  Multidetector CT radiation dose optimisation in adults: short- and long-term effects of a clinical audit.  Eur Radiol. 2014;24(1):169-175.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Jones  E, Parast  M, Adams  S. A framework for effective Six Sigma implementation. Total Qual Manag. 2010. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14783361003606720. Accessed July 30, 2015.
26.
Feld  KG, Stone  WK.  Using six-sigma to change and measure improvement.  Perform Improv. 2002;41(9):20-26.Google ScholarCrossref
27.
Siegelman  JRQW, Gress  DA.  Radiology stewardship and quality improvement: the process and costs of implementing a CT radiation dose optimization committee in a medium-sized community hospital system.  J Am Coll Radiol. 2013;10(6):416-422.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Goenka  AH, Dong  F, Wildman  B, Hulme  K, Johnson  P, Herts  BR.  CT radiation dose optimization and tracking program at a large quaternary-care health care system.  J Am Coll Radiol. 2015;12(7):703-710.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Zamora  DA, Robinson  JD, Kanal  KM.  Targeted CT dose reduction using a novel dose metric and the American College of Radiology Dose Index Registry: application to thoracic CT angiography.  AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016;207(5):1039-1045.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Original Investigation
June 2017

Optimizing Radiation Doses for Computed Tomography Across Institutions: Dose Auditing and Best Practices

Author Affiliations
  • 1Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco
  • 2Department of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco
  • 3Department of Radiology, University of California, San Diego
  • 4Department of Public Health Sciences, UC Davis, and Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Washington
  • 5Department of Radiology, University of California, Irvine
  • 6Department of Radiology, University of California, Los Angeles
JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(6):810-817. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.0445
Key Points

Question  Does auditing and sharing of best practice across institutions lead to optimization of radiation dose in computed tomographic scans?

Findings  In this study, after auditing and sharing of best practices the mean effective dose for chest and abdominal CT decreased by 19% and 25%, respectively, with the percentage of CT scans exceeding benchmarks decreasing by 48% and 54%, respectively. Mean effective dose in head CT scans varied less following auditing and sharing best practices, with some institutions increasing and some decreasing mean head CT doses.

Meaning  Sharing best practices on CT dose optimization with professionals from different institutions can lower radiation doses and potentially improve practice.

Abstract

Importance  Radiation doses for computed tomography (CT) vary substantially across institutions.

Objective  To assess the impact of institutional-level audit and collaborative efforts to share best practices on CT radiation doses across 5 University of California (UC) medical centers.

Design, Setting, and Participants  In this before/after interventional study, we prospectively collected radiation dose metrics on all diagnostic CT examinations performed between October 1, 2013, and December 31, 2014, at 5 medical centers. Using data from January to March (baseline), we created audit reports detailing the distribution of radiation dose metrics for chest, abdomen, and head CT scans. In April, we shared reports with the medical centers and invited radiology professionals from the centers to a 1.5-day in-person meeting to review reports and share best practices.

Main Outcomes and Measures  We calculated changes in mean effective dose 12 weeks before and after the audits and meeting, excluding a 12-week implementation period when medical centers could make changes. We compared proportions of examinations exceeding previously published benchmarks at baseline and following the audit and meeting, and calculated changes in proportion of examinations exceeding benchmarks.

Results  Of 158 274 diagnostic CT scans performed in the study period, 29 594 CT scans were performed in the 3 months before and 32 839 CT scans were performed 12 to 24 weeks after the audit and meeting. Reductions in mean effective dose were considerable for chest and abdomen. Mean effective dose for chest CT decreased from 13.2 to 10.7 mSv (18.9% reduction; 95% CI, 18.0%-19.8%). Reductions at individual medical centers ranged from 3.8% to 23.5%. The mean effective dose for abdominal CT decreased from 20.0 to 15.0 mSv (25.0% reduction; 95% CI, 24.3%-25.8%). Reductions at individual medical centers ranged from 10.8% to 34.7%. The number of CT scans that had an effective dose measurement that exceeded benchmarks was reduced considerably by 48% and 54% for chest and abdomen, respectively. After the audit and meeting, head CT doses varied less, although some institutions increased and some decreased mean head CT doses and the proportion above benchmarks.

Conclusions and Relevance  Reviewing institutional doses and sharing dose-optimization best practices resulted in lower radiation doses for chest and abdominal CT and more consistent doses for head CT.

×